Like I said, I allowed myself to be totally immersed in it, like I was a floating disembodied head along for the ride.
I'm sorry it doesn't work for you. I guess its a totally personal thing.
Oh yeah, that's fine then.
It's just when you said earlier it's 'poppycock' to think otherwise, you implied it's complete nonsense. Which it isn't - it's a genuine problem many people have with the film, regardless of whether others can look past it or not.
I can't even begin to describe how much better the Bag End scenes in Fellowship looked compared to the scenes in the Hobbit. In FotR I was catching a glimpse of a fantastical dwelling, with the fire flickering in the corner, etc. It looked like an old home that had been around for generations.
In The Hobbit I was seeing a fake-looking set that looked like the walls were going to collapse any moment, actors in makeup and very little fantastical feel at all. Like someone else mentioned, it felt like I was spending a day on set for work-experience for much of the film.
The outside shots worked far better though, with the scenery and everything. HFR is wonderfully suited to nature documentaries I think.
Not long to wait now, seeing it tomorrow. Hope I am not going to regret seeing it in the Southampton IMAX. According to Odeon there is only one of their IMAX showing it at the HFR and it isn't Southampton although their screen 2 non IMAX is showing it as the HFR. Not that I am that worried but I am taking two friends and it isn't cheap so want the best for them :-)
Not long to wait now, seeing it tomorrow. Hope I am not going to regret seeing it in the Southampton IMAX. According to Odeon there is only one of their IMAX showing it at the HFR and it isn't Southampton although their screen 2 non IMAX is showing it as the HFR. Not that I am that worried but I am taking two friends and it isn't cheap so want the best for them :-)
PJ
As someone from Southampton I have to say the IMAX screen is pretty small.
Yeah its (very) roughly about 2 and a half times bigger
Thanks. So still quite big then, and my friend said the sound is awesome in the IMAX screen. Shame that some of the other screens there are so small, at least 5 have under 80 seats. Might as well have a DVD player and tv.
3D in 48fps is how 3D should be! None of the blurriness that is normal in normal 3D, crystal clear 3D. I saw a reviewer mention its almost like a pantomime/play because the characters are so clear and almost in the room - I agree!
Cracking film, a fabulous balance of drama and spectacle, loads of classic scenes, and ultimately every bit as enjoyable as any of the 3 LOTR films. My bum started to complain towards the end, and I'm rather pleased we didn't get to spend more in that time in that faraway mountain but despite that I wouldn't have cut one second from it.
My first thought on leaving the cinema was that if ever there was a film to persuade people to watch something on the big screen, as opposed to on DVD, this was it.
My only criticism is that I think that with one year's more polish, some of the CGI effects could have been even better. With that in mind, I think episodes 2 and 3 are going to be truly amazing.
It's just when you said earlier it's 'poppycock' to think otherwise, you implied it's complete nonsense. Which it isn't - it's a genuine problem many people have with the film, regardless of whether others can look past it or not.
I can't even begin to describe how much better the Bag End scenes in Fellowship looked compared to the scenes in the Hobbit. In FotR I was catching a glimpse of a fantastical dwelling, with the fire flickering in the corner, etc. It looked like an old home that had been around for generations.
In The Hobbit I was seeing a fake-looking set that looked like the walls were going to collapse any moment, actors in makeup and very little fantastical feel at all. Like someone else mentioned, it felt like I was spending a day on set for work-experience for much of the film.
The outside shots worked far better though, with the scenery and everything. HFR is wonderfully suited to nature documentaries I think.
Straight back from the film, still totally thrilled etc, etc. Subsequent posts came when I had time to think about it.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with "the critics" about a film as much as I do on this. An utterly fantastic film, captured the essence and humour of the book perfectly while doing a pretty successful job at making it feel like more of an epic.
The casting is spot on, Freeman in particular absolutely wonderful as Bilbo and Armitage made a surprisingly good Thorin. It was lovely to be back in Middle Earth, seeing the locations and hearing the same old themes, just a really enjoyable experience. The only part I wasn't particularly enamoured with was Radagast, but beyond that I loved it all. Riddles in the Dark is perhaps the standout chapter of all books I read as a child, and the film did it justice. Cannot wait for the next two installments.
Eleven of us went to see the HFR 3D at the Vue Cribbs Causeway this weekend.
Everyone loved the film and the HFR 3D. The time just flew by.
I was listening to the Peter Jacksons interview on the Simon Mayo show last Friday. I feel that I may have got the whole story process wrong. Essentially the first 2 films is The Hobbit. The third film is the link between The Hobbit and the LoTR trilogy. Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh have plunder all the books for the complete back story of the resurrection of Sauron, hence the third film. He stated in his interview that this maybe the last time he does films about Middle Earth, so he wants to take this opportunity to tell the full story.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with "the critics" about a film as much as I do on this. An utterly fantastic film, captured the essence and humour of the book perfectly while doing a pretty successful job at making it feel like more of an epic.
The casting is spot on, Freeman in particular absolutely wonderful as Bilbo and Armitage made a surprisingly good Thorin. It was lovely to be back in Middle Earth, seeing the locations and hearing the same old themes, just a really enjoyable experience. The only part I wasn't particularly enamoured with was Radagast, but beyond that I loved it all. Riddles in the Dark is perhaps the standout chapter of all books I read as a child, and the film did it justice. Cannot wait for the next two installments.
This sums up precisely how I felt about it, too. I cant help wonderng why the critics were gunning for it. i hope it takes enough at the box office for PJ to feel confident he made some justifiable decisions, there.
A lot of critics are overly pretentious though, they want their films to be arty and have meaning, that's probably partly what they don't like about it. I don't think critics have ever been keen on straight fantasy.
The Amazing Spiderman has a higher score on RottenTomatoes than the Hobbit...
The LOTR series are my favourite films and I regularly watch the extended versions so obviously I was going to enjoy the Hobbit - but I still think the critics have got this one wrong.
The Amazing Spiderman has a higher score on RottenTomatoes than the Hobbit...
The LOTR series are my favourite films and I regularly watch the extended versions so obviously I was going to enjoy the Hobbit - but I still think the critics have got this one wrong.
you only need to look at the fact that 81% percent of the audience on there like it,the audience is all that Peter Jackson cares about,the audience will make their own minds up about what they see
I enjoyed it, good film Felt a bit slow moving at the start but I loved hearing the familliar themes, the spectacle and humour - the touch seemed lighter than LOTR even though it was 12A
Martin Freeman was great as Bilbo, loved the bit with Gollum, and the troills - I remember that "Roast Mutton" chapter as a kid
Saw it yesterday in 2D. I've certainly seen sharper, more immersive 2D films before, so maybe something has been lost in the processing. It all looked a bit artificial, even the landscapes (which are presumably real). This was at a Vue "Scene" auditorium which is supposedly a premium screen (£16 for 2D!).
Found it all a bit relentless and headache-inducing. The Freeman/Serkis face-off is absolutely fantastic and by far the most enjoyable part of the film. It put the rest of the film in the shade because it had wit, emotion and tension, all of which are sadly lacking in the overblown battle sequences which dominate the film. And I was left feeling that it's a sequel rather than a precursor to LOTR - despite taking place many years earlier, it relies heavily on our prior knowledge of Middle-earth, the Ring, Gandalf etc.
Having done my best to approach this with an open mind I'm very tempted to pass on the rest of the trilogy.
I know what you mean, as everyone will have seen LOTR first, to those who have lots of stuff in The Hobbit will seem like foreshadowing (it did to me) especially since they started the film with Bilbo/Frodo around the time of the LOTR. Of course it perhaps relies on our prior knowledge of the Ring etc as you say otherwise you'd be going "Why is Gollum so interested in it, and Bilbo turned invisible? How will it affect him?"
Loved the Gollum/Bilbo duel
The battles were good but I agree they lacked tension and plain menace somehow, even though it was a 12A film. I found the PG rated FOTR far darker.
Saw it on the IMAX on Saturday. Was initially dupious about it. Adore LOTR and had just read The Hobbit the other month for the first time (had previous read LOTR before seeing FOTR 11 years ago and was meant to have read The Hobbit well before now!!)
Anyway - bottom line - Its good, but it really is drawn out and to long. Its only a tiny little book. And this film is just the 1st 3rd of its story!!!! Such a tiny book made into a 8 hour/3 movie piece is Overkill. Only reason? To cash in on LOTR surprising success and make the mega bucks. Of course WB are interested now (weren't they one of the many studios who initially turned Jackson down for 3 LOTR movies?), Of course they would nod their heads to 3 movies for this book. These movies after all will make almost a $Billion a piece!!!
I am growing more annoyed at these silly interviews from various cast members and even P.Jackson himself defending the decision to make 3 films out of it - how it wasn't about the cash to be had - how it was abou telling Tolkin's Middle Earth story and giving it justice - blah blah blah. Of course it was about the money!!! And is quite insulting to be told different.
But it wasn't without its good moments. Its good to be back in Middle Earth again. its good to see actors portray their old characters from LOTR movies, (even though they had been crowbared in). and even new characters that weren't even in the book!! Radegast the Brown for instance (from FOTR book) though it was nice to see Sylvester McCoy on the big screen, (even though his bit was a little bit boring - I loved the effort).
I liked the dwarves and liked how they have used some of the songs featured. But as a previous poster has said - only a few of dwarves got screen time really. the others didn't even speak from what I can recall. Did like the intro sequence.
Liked M.Freeman and just knew already he was just perfect for Bilbo. Gutted when he initially had to turn the role down due to commits filming Sherlock - glad they where able to adjust the filming schedule of the entire movie just for him!!
And as many others have said, the Gollum sequence was of course done really well - quite frightening to be honest!!! And of course McKellen was a treat to see again as Gandalf.
Despite my moaning, I do actually want to see it again. Isn't the HFR version different to the IMAX version?!
The Peter Jackson-helmed fantasy epic, took in £11.6 million to secure first place in the chart. Three 3D films are currently in the top ten chart.
1. (-) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - £11,601,538
2. (1) Rise of the Guardians - £1,250,469
5. (-) Tinker Bell and the Secret of the Wings - £528,820
I agree it seemed too long, its only a short book compared to LOTR FFS - maybe 2 or even just 1 film would have been enough. I can understand 3 films for LOTR but The Hobbit? Would WB have made 3 movies from one Harry Potter book? Even Deathly Hallows was "only" 2 films (and its a fairly big book).
But The Hobbit was a good film like some of the songs especially the one at the end sung by Neil Finn.
Re: the frame rate, we saw it in 2D HD (Epsom Odeon) and the only time I noticed any blurryness was when the camera panned across the landscape (this happened once) and the CGI looked slightly off from a distance. After a little while, I didn't notice anything, it was fine. I get motion sick easily cos of my inner ear problems but I felt fine.
I was very impressed with Gollum's CGI! I thought it was really good.
Comments
But I remember having this criticism of the first LTR too,
It's just when you said earlier it's 'poppycock' to think otherwise, you implied it's complete nonsense. Which it isn't - it's a genuine problem many people have with the film, regardless of whether others can look past it or not.
I can't even begin to describe how much better the Bag End scenes in Fellowship looked compared to the scenes in the Hobbit. In FotR I was catching a glimpse of a fantastical dwelling, with the fire flickering in the corner, etc. It looked like an old home that had been around for generations.
In The Hobbit I was seeing a fake-looking set that looked like the walls were going to collapse any moment, actors in makeup and very little fantastical feel at all. Like someone else mentioned, it felt like I was spending a day on set for work-experience for much of the film.
The outside shots worked far better though, with the scenery and everything. HFR is wonderfully suited to nature documentaries I think.
PJ
As someone from Southampton I have to say the IMAX screen is pretty small.
it will probably be one of those Digital IMAX screens,not as big as the proper 70mm Film screens
But presumably bigger than the screen in screen 2?
PJ
Yeah its (very) roughly about 2 and a half times bigger
Thanks. So still quite big then, and my friend said the sound is awesome in the IMAX screen. Shame that some of the other screens there are so small, at least 5 have under 80 seats. Might as well have a DVD player and tv.
PJ
Good film.
3D in 48fps is how 3D should be! None of the blurriness that is normal in normal 3D, crystal clear 3D. I saw a reviewer mention its almost like a pantomime/play because the characters are so clear and almost in the room - I agree!
Cracking film, a fabulous balance of drama and spectacle, loads of classic scenes, and ultimately every bit as enjoyable as any of the 3 LOTR films. My bum started to complain towards the end, and I'm rather pleased we didn't get to spend more in that time in that faraway mountain but despite that I wouldn't have cut one second from it.
My first thought on leaving the cinema was that if ever there was a film to persuade people to watch something on the big screen, as opposed to on DVD, this was it.
My only criticism is that I think that with one year's more polish, some of the CGI effects could have been even better. With that in mind, I think episodes 2 and 3 are going to be truly amazing.
Straight back from the film, still totally thrilled etc, etc. Subsequent posts came when I had time to think about it.
That's your view, not mine
I happen to agree with PJ that's all.
The casting is spot on, Freeman in particular absolutely wonderful as Bilbo and Armitage made a surprisingly good Thorin. It was lovely to be back in Middle Earth, seeing the locations and hearing the same old themes, just a really enjoyable experience. The only part I wasn't particularly enamoured with was Radagast, but beyond that I loved it all. Riddles in the Dark is perhaps the standout chapter of all books I read as a child, and the film did it justice. Cannot wait for the next two installments.
Everyone loved the film and the HFR 3D. The time just flew by.
I was listening to the Peter Jacksons interview on the Simon Mayo show last Friday. I feel that I may have got the whole story process wrong. Essentially the first 2 films is The Hobbit. The third film is the link between The Hobbit and the LoTR trilogy. Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh have plunder all the books for the complete back story of the resurrection of Sauron, hence the third film. He stated in his interview that this maybe the last time he does films about Middle Earth, so he wants to take this opportunity to tell the full story.
Its worth taking some time out to have a listen.
This sums up precisely how I felt about it, too. I cant help wonderng why the critics were gunning for it. i hope it takes enough at the box office for PJ to feel confident he made some justifiable decisions, there.
The LOTR series are my favourite films and I regularly watch the extended versions so obviously I was going to enjoy the Hobbit - but I still think the critics have got this one wrong.
you only need to look at the fact that 81% percent of the audience on there like it,the audience is all that Peter Jackson cares about,the audience will make their own minds up about what they see
Martin Freeman was great as Bilbo, loved the bit with Gollum, and the troills - I remember that "Roast Mutton" chapter as a kid
Found it all a bit relentless and headache-inducing. The Freeman/Serkis face-off is absolutely fantastic and by far the most enjoyable part of the film. It put the rest of the film in the shade because it had wit, emotion and tension, all of which are sadly lacking in the overblown battle sequences which dominate the film. And I was left feeling that it's a sequel rather than a precursor to LOTR - despite taking place many years earlier, it relies heavily on our prior knowledge of Middle-earth, the Ring, Gandalf etc.
Having done my best to approach this with an open mind I'm very tempted to pass on the rest of the trilogy.
Loved the Gollum/Bilbo duel
The battles were good but I agree they lacked tension and plain menace somehow, even though it was a 12A film. I found the PG rated FOTR far darker.
Anyway - bottom line - Its good, but it really is drawn out and to long. Its only a tiny little book. And this film is just the 1st 3rd of its story!!!! Such a tiny book made into a 8 hour/3 movie piece is Overkill. Only reason? To cash in on LOTR surprising success and make the mega bucks. Of course WB are interested now (weren't they one of the many studios who initially turned Jackson down for 3 LOTR movies?), Of course they would nod their heads to 3 movies for this book. These movies after all will make almost a $Billion a piece!!!
I am growing more annoyed at these silly interviews from various cast members and even P.Jackson himself defending the decision to make 3 films out of it - how it wasn't about the cash to be had - how it was abou telling Tolkin's Middle Earth story and giving it justice - blah blah blah. Of course it was about the money!!! And is quite insulting to be told different.
But it wasn't without its good moments. Its good to be back in Middle Earth again. its good to see actors portray their old characters from LOTR movies, (even though they had been crowbared in). and even new characters that weren't even in the book!! Radegast the Brown for instance (from FOTR book) though it was nice to see Sylvester McCoy on the big screen, (even though his bit was a little bit boring - I loved the effort).
I liked the dwarves and liked how they have used some of the songs featured. But as a previous poster has said - only a few of dwarves got screen time really. the others didn't even speak from what I can recall. Did like the intro sequence.
Liked M.Freeman and just knew already he was just perfect for Bilbo. Gutted when he initially had to turn the role down due to commits filming Sherlock - glad they where able to adjust the filming schedule of the entire movie just for him!!
And as many others have said, the Gollum sequence was of course done really well - quite frightening to be honest!!! And of course McKellen was a treat to see again as Gandalf.
Despite my moaning, I do actually want to see it again. Isn't the HFR version different to the IMAX version?!
oh - sorry - I just had to
1. (-) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - £11,601,538
2. (1) Rise of the Guardians - £1,250,469
5. (-) Tinker Bell and the Secret of the Wings - £528,820
Keep updated on 3D https://www.facebook.com/films3d
But The Hobbit was a good film
Re: the frame rate, we saw it in 2D HD (Epsom Odeon) and the only time I noticed any blurryness was when the camera panned across the landscape (this happened once) and the CGI looked slightly off from a distance. After a little while, I didn't notice anything, it was fine. I get motion sick easily cos of my inner ear problems but I felt fine.
I was very impressed with Gollum's CGI! I thought it was really good.
Also loved seeing Aidan Turner in his first movie